Red Stern

10-26 Update: A more rational take from *gasp* a corporate media outlet.


Stern told the truth about one thing. Regarding the report that six NBA referees were punished for violating league gambling rules, Der Kommissar insisted that it wasn't the case, that the investigation is ongoing.

As it turns out, not six but ALL of the referees gave admitted to rules violations, and not a single one of them will be punished. I repeat -- NOT A SINGLE PUNISHMENT IS FORTHCOMING!

Why?

"Our ban on gambling is absolute, and in my view it is too absolute, too harsh and was not particularly well-enforced over the years," Stern said. "We're going to come up with a new set of rules that make sense."

Now, every Suns fan on the planet (Earth, not Orange) can look at this and wonder aloud with absolute validity, what happened to strict enforcement of the rules? Rules is rules, and they are not open to interpretation, let alone absolute dismissal. But here we are, facing a controversy that strikes the very core of the league's integrity, and suddenly the rules do not apply.

Worse, they are "too absolute."

I have made it clear in previous entries that I shy away from expletives on my blog because I am well aware that it is read by the professional media. That being the case, I want to set a good example and show them that it is OK to link to A Clockwork Orange if they so desire (this has yet to happen, of course, but still I hold out hope). But I have also made it clear that there are exceptions to the rule -- ANY rule. So here goes . . .

Are you fucking kidding me?!

A rule that cost the Suns their best shot at a title was said by Stern to be set in stone. It is not open to interpretation, and the only way to change it is if the owners tell him they want it changed, public outcry notwithstanding.

It seems Stern fancies himself a clever man, as he chooses his words carefully. It "was not well-enforced," thus opening the door to act in a manner contrary to recent history. The "leaving the bench rule," after all, had precedent (though it wasn't needed). Ten years of precedent. And it had been "well-enforced" consistently.

Not to open that racial can of worms again, but exactly why is a rule governing an 85% black population so well-enforced, but a rule governing a (roughly) 70% white population not so well-enforced?

I've been down the racial road too often recently, so I will leave that argument for someone less qualified to tackle (that's your cue, cosellout). I just wanted to throw it out there, since it just conveniently popped into my mind.

Back to Stern's double-speak.

"It's too easy to issue rules that are on their faith violated by $5 Nassau, sitting at a poker table, buying a lottery ticket and then we can move along," Stern said. "And by the time I got through and I determined going into a casino isn't a capital offense ... I'm the CEO of the NBA and I'll take responsibility."

It's too easy to issue rules like that? What does that even mean?

How about rules that are, on their faith, violated by natural human instincts, such as leaping to a team mate's side when he's been body checked into the scorer's table? Was that too easy? And since we're on the subject of his dictatorship, why did Stern not take responsibility for Robert Horry's game four actions and distribute justice...well...justly?

I don't want to get into what I think about David Stern's thought processes, as they are ugly and almost inhuman, in my opinion. He cares more about protecting his ego than he does about the league of which he is the CEO (an inaccurate statement, to be sure). He blew up when Dan Patrick dared question his authority, and openly lied to Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon on Pardon the Interruption.

In sum, I am not surprised in the least at Stern's reaction to the news that all of his referees are crooked. They may not have been "hanging crimes," but they were clear rules violations. I am also not shocked that a majority white population is allowed to determine the validity of these rules on his own, while a majority black population is constrained by "the letter of the law."

What does surprise me is that players, coaches, general managers, and owners across the league aren't stopping in their tracks and saying, "Wait...what the fuck did you just say?" I'm surprised that they would let a man control their incomes with such singularity that anyone who questions his actions is destined to lose said income. This is, after all, a business. Teams are in the business of winning championships, because it is through championships that marketing deals are struck and ticket prices increase.

Capitalist competition requires a level playing field wherein each entity has an equal shot at burying the competition, so long as its strategy is sound. A dictatorial leader (commissioner and CEO are NOT equivalent in the least) handing out arbitrary rulings that differentiate each entity within the capitalist structure serves the purpose, not of the league and its components, but that leader. Thus, market capitalism has become totalitarian socialism, where the society serves the purpose of the dictator, and any dissension is met with swift and blinding retribution within "the letter of the law," above which stands his personal security force. If they can't break the rules, then what's the point of even having rules?

As I said in my last entry, it is no wonder that Stern has so excitedly cozied up to a traditionally dictatorial socialist regime in China. It seems that he has modeled the league in the image of Mao Tse Tung's red giant. Only one question remains.

Which of us will stand before the tank?

I humbly volunteer.